p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3428 of 2026 Munna Kumbhar …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Tofan Kumar Sahoo, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 05.05.2026 F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 10 25.01. 2023 Bisra S.T. Case No.161/32 of 2023, 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela 450/302/307 of the IPC 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner, being in custody in connection with Bisra P.S. Case No.10 dated 21.01.2023, corresponding to S.T. Case No.161/32 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela, registered for the alleged Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-May-2026 18:56:01 Signature Not Verified p. 2 commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The case of the prosecution as per the F.I.R., in brief, is that on 24.01.2023 at about 9.00 p.m., the informant was informed by his elder mother that the Petitioner had assaulted his parents, resulting in the death of his mother and grievous injuries to his father. On reaching the spot, the informant allegedly found the dead body of his mother lying in front of the house and his father in an injured condition with bleeding injuries on the head. Hence, the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.01.2023. It is argued that there was no prior enmity or intention to commit the alleged offence and the incident, as per the defence version, occurred due to sudden provocation. It is further contended that there are material contradictions between the FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that out of 38 charge-sheeted witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined so far and many of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. On these grounds, prayer for grant of bail has been made. Page 3 of 4 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application contending that the allegations are grave in nature involving death of one person and serious injuries to another. It is further submitted that the trial is at a crucial stage, a large number of material witnesses are yet to be examined and there is every likelihood that if the Petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses. 7. The allegations against the Petitioner are serious in nature, involving the death of one person and grievous injuries to another. At this stage, the evidentiary value of contradictions, if any, between the FIR and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be examined in detail, as such issues are matters for trial. The contention that some of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case also cannot, at this stage, be a ground to enlarge the Petitioner on bail, particularly when the trial is still going on and material witnesses remain to be examined. 8. The Petitioner is in custody since 26.01.2023; however, the length of custody alone is not a decisive factor where allegations are grave and the possibility of interference with the course of justice cannot be ruled out. 9. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the stage of trial, the possibility of tampering with evidence and p. 4 the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the Petitioner is hereby rejected. \ 11. The BLAPL stand disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun